I do not think you have ever sent an article for publication in a reputable
journal. If you propose something you have to have the evidence to back it.
You can't tell the referee to prove that you are wrong! The claim of Fox,
or yours, that he has created something that is not alive but was the way
life came into being is nothing but a CLAIM. Nothing wrong with making
assumptions in science but lets us not claim what is DEAD to be ALIVE! All
what you are saying about protocells sounds like what one can create
physical entities in the computer that can "reproduce" and can "combine" to
make other things like themselves. I read the article in the SIU website
and the writer himself uses the there that he "believes" that Fox has
create life. In the movie Frankenstein the creator said the famous lines
"he is alive!" I do not think we can say that here!

>In a message dated 5/11/99 1:24:59 AM Mountain Daylight Time,>alexanian@uncwil.edu writes:>>>>> My statement is the these protocells are what Fox thinks how life came>into>> being from the material.>>>>He has alot of evidence to support that belief. What evidence do you have>that he is wrong?>>>>> However, the protocells themselves are not alive.>>>>So you keep saying, but you have not offerred one piece of evidence or one>decent biological argument to support YOUR belief. All you have offerred
is>word games and metaphysical arguments about death.>>>>> That is a theory since he cannot produce living things from these>protocells>> that he "assembled" in the lab.>>>>And when I demonstrate that by your own argument Fox's protocells must be>alive because they can die, now you move the goalposts. Protocells are>themselves alive, and since they can reproduce they can produce more living>things from themselves. They can even evolve by conjugating and sharing>information packets between each other, or by merging to form larger
combined>protocells that are more versitile.>>Face it Moorad. Fox's protocells are alive and you cannot prove otherwise.>The only difference between you and Art is that he realizes when he's been>licked and bails out, whereas you just continue to repeat the same>fallacious, refuted arguments over and over again. Why don't you discuss
the>real evidence instead of playing these games? Or is that a fool question?>>Kevin L. O'Brien